BTTT-he ranks up there with Macarthur, Patton, and Lee-IMHO.
IIRC, Petraeus was not involved with taking Baghdad. That was mostly the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized).
So “The Battle of Algiers” is one of his favorites? Hmmm, maybe Netflix can market a DVD with his commentaries.
“...Petraeus is determined to apply his method to Afghanistan: living among the people, bringing them security, establishing a legitimate government, and creating a viable economy. He calls this the Anaconda strategy. Projected on a screen, the scheme resembles a fat snake nourishing itself from all possible elements, from special forces to propaganda operations to school construction. This will require, he says, “not unity of command with NATO, which isn’t possible, but unity of coordination,” which does not exist yet. “If we have the right ideas,” Petraeus says, “they will let us beat the extremists, who have taken advantage of the fact that we are still prisoners of archaic military methods.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
What Afghanistan is most desperately in need of is “good government.” For those who follow the writings and interviews of those who have actually been there, soldiers, boots-on-the-ground journalists, contractors and the better aid workers, what comes up again and again is the state of abject corruption and incompetence of Pashmina Boy and just about everyone under him down to the extortionate checkpoints and roadblocks that the so-called security forces conduct. Among others, the “warlords” have got to go. The people are desperate for decent government and the Taliban feeds off of that.
It would take at least ten U.S. Senators to make one General Petraeus
Bump for later Monday reading
Obama's Vietnam? Pouring more troops into Afghanistan isn't going to help
Where Nations Go To Die (Through Big Government, That's Who Alert)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.